Watkins v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Watkins v. State

582 So. 2d 106, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6105, 1991 WL 115611

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 28, 1991

DocketNo. 90-03328

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 582 So. 2d 106 (Watkins v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Watkins v. State, 582 So. 2d 106, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6105, 1991 WL 115611 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Robert Watkins, convicted of burglary of a dwelling and loitering and prowling, raises two minor points in this appeal. We affirm as to both.

On July 12, 1990, Watkins was before the court to resolve numerous motions, including a motion to sever the misdemeanor loitering charge. The trial court indicated it would grant the motion. However, during the same hearing the court also denied a motion in limine concerning the burglary charge, and Watkins decided to enter a plea of nolo contendere. The plea covered both charges. Watkins now argues that the circuit court, by virtue of its having severed the loitering charge, had no jurisdiction to accept the plea or sentence for that offense. However, we find that the decision to sever, never reduced to written order, did not become final before Watkins’s change of heart regarding the major offense. In effect the trial court was reconsidering its prior ruling at Watkins’s request and for his convenience, which under these circumstances it had the authority to do. See State v. Vazquez, 450 So.2d 203 (Fla.1984).

The second point on appeal concerns the imposition of costs, assertedly without prior notice. This issue has been disposed of by the supreme court’s recent decision in State v. Beasley, 580 So.2d 139 (Fla.1991), and is without merit.

Affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LEHAN and HALL, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Robert Watkins, convicted of burglary of a dwelling and loitering and prowling, raises two minor points in this appeal. We affirm as to both.

On July 12, 1990, Watkins was before the court to resolve numerous motions, including a motion to sever the misdemeanor loitering charge. The trial court indicated it would grant the motion. However, during the same hearing the court also denied a motion in limine concerning the burglary charge, and Watkins decided to enter a plea of nolo contendere. The plea covered both charges. Watkins now argues that the circuit court, by virtue of its having severed the loitering charge, had no jurisdiction to accept the plea or sentence for that offense. However, we find that the decision to sever, never reduced to written order, did not become final before Watkins’s change of heart regarding the major offense. In effect the trial court was reconsidering its prior ruling at Watkins’s request and for his convenience, which under these circumstances it had the authority to do. See State v. Vazquez, 450 So.2d 203 (Fla.1984).

The second point on appeal concerns the imposition of costs, assertedly without prior notice. This issue has been disposed of by the supreme court’s recent decision in State v. Beasley, 580 So.2d 139 (Fla.1991), and is without merit.

Affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LEHAN and HALL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

582 So. 2d 106, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6105, 1991 WL 115611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watkins-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack